RecorderOfficial  organ  of  the  Melbourne  Branch  of  the  Australian  Society  for  the  Study  of  Labour  History

Issue  No.  272—December  2011  

IN  THIS  EDITION:

•Notice  of  AGM,  p.  1•THE  1951  ‘COMMUNIST’  REFERENDUM’,  by  Bob  Corcoran,  pp.  1-­‐3•The  People’s  Train:  Review,  by  Brian  McKinlay,  p.  3•What’s  in  a  Memoir:  All  Along  the  Watchtower,  by  Ken  Mansell,  pp.  4-­‐7  

•Robeson  Remembered,  by  John  Ellis,  p.  7•Retired  Trade  Unionists  Live  On,  by  Brian  Smiddy,  p.  7•What  is  labour  history  for?  pp.  7-­‐8•Parlinfo:  Hansard  (and  more)  online,  p.  8•Notices  and  Branch  contact  details,  p.  8

 MELBOURNE  BRANCH,  ASSLHANNUAL  GENERAL  MEETING

Thursday  8  December  at  5.30pm  

Melbourne  Trades  HallMeeting  Room  2  –  opposite  Reception

AgendaReports:  President,  Secretary,  

Treasurer.

Election  of  OfAice  Bearers  and  General  Business.

A  21st  BIRTHDAY

Our   congratulations   to   the  Victorian  Trade  Union  Choir   on  celebrating  their  21st   birthday!   [Photo  by   Peter  Love].  The  Melbourne   Branch   is   a   Major   Chord   Comrade   Project  Sponsor,   donating  $1,500  towards   the   Choir’s   forthcoming  activities  in  2012.  

MEMORIES  OF  THE  1951  ‘COMMUNIST’  REFERENDUM’

By  Bob  Corcoran

The  University  of  Melbourne  was  the  venue   for   a   wonderful   two   day  c o n f e r e n c e   o n   t h e   t h e m e  ‘Democracy   v s   Commun i sm:  Remembering  the  1951  Referendum  on   the   Banning   of   the   Communist  Party,  6oth  Anniversary’.  

From   the   23rd–25th   September  2011,   over   Oifty   people   participated   in   a   series   of  lectures   and   discussions.   There   were   many   highlights,  one   in  particular   that  attracted  my   attention  was   the  revelation   that   the   late   Senator   Ivor   Greenwood,   the  then   Attorney   General   in   the   Liberal   Government   in  November  1972,  authorised   for   a  warrant  to  be   issued  so  that  the   telephone  of   the   late   John  Halfpenny   could  be   tapped.   The   reason   for   this   hostile  action  was   that  the   Liberal   Government  was   concerned   that   if   Gough  Whitlam  were  elected  Prime  Minister  on  2nd  December  1972,   that   political   anarchy   would   arise   in   Australia.  Here,   Bob  Corcoran   reOlects  on   the   conference   and  his  recollections  of  the  referendum.  [Brian  Smiddy]

****The  defeat  of   the  referendum  was  achieved  mainly  by  a  remarkable  and  courageous  effort  by  the  ALP  leader,  Dr.   H.V.   Evatt,   who   worked   tirelessly   to   oppose   the  change.   He   did   so   despite   the   danger   to   his   own  political  career.

If   the   change   to   the   Constitution   had   been   approved  and  the  proposed  legislation  enacted,   heavy  penalties  could   have   been   imposed   on   anyone   named   as   a  ‘communist’.   And   who   could   be   branded   as   a  ‘communist’   and   suffer   the   severe   consequences  included   in   the   intended   Act   of   Parliament?   –   any  person   named   as   a   ‘communist’   by   the   appropriate  government  minister!  

Regis tered  by  Aust ra l ia  Post  PRINT  POST  306-­‐181-­‐0004-­‐ ISSN  0155-­‐8722

Recorder  no.  272

NOTICE  OF  ANNUAL  GENERAL  MEETING

If   the   referendum   had   been   won   there   would   have  been   a   reversal   of   the   principle   of   ‘innocent   until  proven   guilty’.   Surprisingly,   this   extreme   and  dangerous   element   in   the   proposed   legislation   was  scarcely  mentioned  at  the  recent  conference.

However,   the   interesting   papers   presented   gave  informative   and  detailed   accounts  of  many  aspects  of  the   campaign,   including   the   performance   of   the  newspapers  (it  was  pre-­‐TV  of  course)  and  the  political  party   leaders.   The   outstanding   feature   of   the  campaign   (probably   due   to   Evatt’s   work)   was   the  remarkable   change   in   the   attitude   of   voters:   from   a  massive   majority   in   favour   of   the   proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution  to  its  defeat,  albeit  by  a  very  narrow  margin.  

At   the   conference,   one   important   factor   in   the  campaign   received  little  attention.   It  was  the  political  atmosphere   in   1951   –   and   concern   over   the   next  election.   At   that   time   the   Liberal   government   was  failing   to   live   up   to   Menzies’   major   promise   in   the  1949  election  campaign,  namely,   ‘to  put  value  back   in  the  pound’.  Instead,  in`lation  had  increased.  

[Why   not   a   referendum   on   prices?,   Worker   Print,   Brisbane,   1951.   Source:  Reason  in  Revolt  http://www.reasoninrevolt.net.au/biogs/E000351b.htm]

The  Liberals  had  won   the  double-­‐dissolution  election  of   1951   but   this   had   been   fought   mainly   on   the  assertion   that   Australia   was   endangered   by  communism   and   traditional   ‘grass   roots’   issues   had  been   largely   ignored.   McCarthyism   had   yet   to   be  recognised  as  a  blot  on  politics.

Under   these   circumstances   persistent   diversion   of  attention   away   from   economics   to   the   purported  danger   of   communism   was   clever   party   politics   by  Menzies,   although   history   has   proved   it   to   be  nonsense.  Communism,  already  in  decline  in  Australia,  continued   to   lose   support   and   in`luence   despite  remaining   legal.   A   less-­‐obvious   political   factor  connected   with   the   referendum   was   the   acceleration  of  division  within  the  ALP  that  culminated  in  the  Split  of  1955.  

Two   examples   illustrate   the   point.   In   those   years  Frank  McManus  gave  a   short  talk  on  behalf  of   the  ALP  

each   week-­‐night   from   the   Labor   Party   radio   station  3KZ.   To   the   astonishment   of   most   Labor   people   he  refused   to   speak   in   favour  of   a   No   vote   despite   this  being  Labor  policy.   This  was  brought  to  the  attention  of   the   Victorian   ALP   by   an   of`icial   letter   from   the  Dandenong   branch   of   the   party,   suggesting   that  someone   else   take   over   during   the   campaign   if  McManus   remained   obdurate.   The   proposal   was  rejected   by   the   Victorian   ‘head   of`ice’   without   any  stated  reason.   It   later  became   clear  that  the  Victorian  Executive  of  the  ALP  was  already  dominated  by  people  who  eventually  became  members  of  the  DLP.

Also,  in  Dandenong,  several  branch  members  then  known  to   the   present   writer   to   be   members   of   the   secretive  Santamaria   Movement   (afterwards   called   the   ‘Catholic  Social   Studies   Movement’)   refused   to   work   for   the   No  campaign.  They  later  became  members  of  the  DLP.  *

As  mentioned  earlier,  the  result  of  the  referendum  was  very  close  and  a  couple  of   thousand  more  Yes  votes  in  Victoria  would   have   seen   the   overall   result  reversed.  The   percentage   of   Yes   and   No   votes   in   the   various  States  received  attention   at  the   recent  conference  but  the   causes  of   the   differences,   State   by   State,   deserve  more  scrutiny.  In  Queensland  and  Western  Australia  it  is   not   hard   to   `ind   a   plausible   reason   for   the  substantial   majorities   for   Yes.   In   those   States   the  Catholic   Archbishops   –   Duhig   (Brisbane)   and  Prendiville   (Perth)   –   publicly   supported   a   Yes   vote.  The   circumstances  surrounding   the   vote   of   Catholics  in  Victoria  were  more  complicated.  

[Dyson,   Ambrose,   ‘Australia's   tradition:   say   "no"   to   tyranny!’,   Liberty,   28  August   1951.  Source:  Reason  in  Revolt   http://www.reasoninrevolt.net.au/bib/PR0000595.htm]

RECORDER

2  Recorder  no.  272

At  `irst  glance   it  may  seem  puzzling   that  Victoria   did  not  produce  a  Yes  majority  as   it  was  the   State  where  the  Movement  was  founded  and  was  already  strong.  It  had   considerable   in`luence   among   Catholics   despite  its  secrecy  and  certainly  favoured  a  Yes  vote.  But  there  was  another  factor,  unknown  until  later  years  but  now  well   documented.   It   was   the   attitude   towards   the  referendum   of   the   Melbourne   Catholic   Archbishop,  Daniel  Mannix.   Although  a   close   friend  and  supporter  of  Santamaria,   the  Archbishop  disagreed  with  him  on  this   occasion   and   was   opposed   to   a   Yes   vote   –  although  this  was  not  public  knowledge  at  the  time.

Perhaps,  at  the  age  of  87,  the  Archbishop  preferred  to  keep  out  of  public  controversy  –  or  did  not  wish  to  be  seen   as   disagreeing   with   Santamaria.   Whatever   the  reason,   Mannix   did   not   publicly   express   an   opinion  but,   unlike   the   Catholic   archbishops   in   Queensland  and   Western   Australia,   Archbishop   Mannix’s   name  could   not   be   used   in   support   of   a   Yes   vote.   Judging  from   the   effect   of   the   public   support   of   the  archbishops  in  those  other  States,  this  was  probably  a  crucial  factor  in  the  result  in  Victoria  –  and  the  overall  defeat  of  the  referendum.

*  A  personal  note  from  Bob  Corcoran.These  Dandenong  ALP  members  were  known  to  me  as  belonging   to   the   Movement   and   at   the   invitation   of  one  of  them   I  had   attended  a  Movement  meeting,   not  knowing  its  nature  in  advance.  I  declined  to  join.

I  was  caught  in  a  con`lict  of  loyalties.  I  did  not  wish  to  harm   the   reputation   of   the   Catholic   Church   and  therefore   did   not  expose   the   Movement   at  that   time,  despite  seeing  it  as  a  threat  to  the  ALP.  But,  for  me,  the  1951  referendum  was  a  turning  point.

At  the   time   a   staunch   old  member  of   the  Dandenong  branch  noticed   the   lack  of   support  from  some  branch  members   in   the   referendum   campaign.   He   con`ided  that   he   sensed   something   strange   was   happening   in  the  party  but,  in  his  words,  ‘I  can’t  put  my   inger  on  it’.  I  felt  he  deserved  to  know  the  facts  and  told  him  about  the   existence   and   nature   of   the   then   very   secret  Movement.  At  the  next  Dandenong  branch  meeting  we  opened  up   the  matter.   In   today’s  language,  we   ‘outed’  the  Movement.  The  meeting  resolved  to  send  a  branch  letter   to   the   Central   Executive   describing   the  Movement  and  its  operation.

The  answer  from  the  Victorian  head  of`ice  of   the  ALP  was   a   two-­‐line   letter   saying   our   letter   ‘has   been  received’.  The  real  response  came  verbally  from  Frank  McManus,   then   Assistant   Secretary   of   the   Victorian  ALP.   He   asserted   that   if   the   Dandenong   Branch  persisted   ‘it   will   be   disbanded,   and   Corcoran   will   be  expelled   from   the   Party.’   The   branch   committee   met  and  decided  to  drop  the  matter,  at  least  for  a  time.  But  the   news   of   the   Dandenong   letter   and   its   contents  circulated  within  the   Victorian  ALP  and   I  was  invited  to  give  evidence   to   the   Federal  Executive   inquiry  into  the  Victorian  ALP  in  1954.  But  that  is  another  story.

THE  PEOPLE’S  TRAIN

By  Brian  McKinlay

Review:   Tom   Keneally,   The   People's  Train ,   Vintage   Books   [Random  House],  2010.  pp.  408.  $19.95  paper.

Tom  Keneally's  many  novels  are  well  known  to  an  army  of  readers,  and  his  sympathy   for   the   marginalised   and  oppressed  is  a  well  known  feature  of  his  writings.

In  his  Australian  historical  writing  he  has   always   shown   compassion   for   convicts,   and   the  Irish  and   other   immigrant   groups.   The  People’s   Train  is   no   different.   This   novel   is   set   in   Brisbane   in   the  years   before   World   War   I,   and   then   he   moves   the  scene   to   Russia   in   1917,   and   sets   the   action   against  the  amazing  events  of   the  two  Russian  Revolutions  of  1917.  Keneally  writes  about  a   remarkable  group   of   Russian  radicals   who   having   escaped   from   Siberian  prisons  during    the  Czarist  regime,  crossed    to  China  to  make  their  way  to  Australia.  The  principal  `igure  in  his  novel,   Artem,   is   based   closely   on   a   Russian   refugee,  who   organised   the   small   but   active   Russian  community   in   Brisbane   into   a   series   of   radical  activities  and   took   them   into   the   mainstream   of   the  labour  movement  in  Brisbane.

Artem   was   a   remarkable   man   who   published   a    Brisbane   journal   in   Russian,   and   brought   his   friends  into   the   Australia   Socialist   Party.   They   became  involved   in   the   Brisbane   General   Strike,   and   later   in  the   anti-­‐war   and   anti-­‐conscription   movements   after  1914.   This   made   him   a   target   for   the   corrupt  Queensland   police,   and   the   conservative   forces   and  later  Hughes  and  the  Federal  Police.  In  1917,  Artem  was  left  a   legacy  by  an  elderly  woman    whom   he   assisted   in   her   last  years   and   this  allowed  him   to   take   a   ship  to  Japan  and  onto  Siberia   after  the  fall   of   the   Czar   in   February   1917.   He   then   threw  himself   into   the   Bolshevik  movement   and   effectively  became   a   Minister   in   Lenin's   government,   after   the  October  Revolution.  These   remarkable   events  are   the   basis   for  Keneally’s  splendid  novel.  The  title  is  derived   from  the   ideas  and  hopes   of   another   Russian   radical   in   Brisbane   who  dreamed   of   a   monorail   to   serve   the   people   in   a  socialist  society.  Novels  about  politics  are   a  rare  thing  in   Australia.   One   thinks   of   Frank   Hardy's   novels,  notably  Power  Without  Glory,  but  few  others  come   to  mind,   and  none  which   looks  at  the   labour  movement  with   such   skill   and   sympathy   as   does   this   one.   The  second   half   of   the   novel   set   in   Russia   in   1917   is    equally  engrossing.  A  great  book  and  one  to  savour!

RECORDER

3  Recorder  no.  272

ALL  ALONG  THE  WATCHTOWER

By  Ken  Mansell

This   is   the   second   of   a   two-­part  review   for   Recorder   of   Michael  Hyde,   All   Along   the   Watchtower  –  Memoir   of   a   Sixties  Revolutionary  (Melbourne:   The   Vulgar   Press,  2010).   The  reviewer   is  Ken  Mansell.  The   book   was   launched   on   19  November   2010   by   Humphrey  McQueen   at   the   Melbourne   Trades  Hall.  

Chronology  and  historical  accuracyAll  Along  the  Watchtower   is  chronologically  confusing.  So   many   of   the   historical   events   described   by   the  author  are  chronologically  disordered.  It  is  impossible  to  get  a   sense  of   how  the  various  student  and  radical  movements   of   the   time   developed   because   his  chronology  is  so  inaccurate.  In  the  author’s  hands,  key  moments  are  misplaced  by  years.  Unlike   the   innocent  or  unwary  reader,  those  with  knowledge  of  the  period,  or   those   who  were   there   and   can   remember   it,   will  recognise  just  how  inaccurate  he  has  been.

Take,   for   example,   the   anti-­‐conscription   movement.  Much  of   the  post-­‐1968  anti-­‐draft  activism  depicted   is  falsely   telescoped   to   1967-­‐68,   effectively   greatly  exaggerating   the   level   of   militancy   of   this   earlier  period.   It   is   nonsense   to   say   that   thousands   were  refusing   to   register   and   burning   their   registration  papers  (or  living   in   Albania!)   in  May   1968,   and   that  civil   disobedience  was  happening   in   the   suburbs  and  shopping   centres   in   1968.   Hyde   has   the   ‘Don’t  Register’   campaign,   which  historically  began   in   1968,  coinciding   with   events   that   took   place   in   1967.   He  describes  himself  reading  Draft  Resisters  Union  (DRU)  advice   for   conscientious   objectors   near   the   end   of  1967,   and   has   the   DRU  organising   a   ‘Fill   in   a   Falsie’  campaign  in  1968.  The  DRU  was  not  formed  until  June  1970.   He   has   his   father   arrested   at   the   GPO   for  handing  out   lea`lets  urging  young  men  not  to  register  (thus  breaking  Council  by-­‐law  418)  in  May  1968  when  this   historically   occurred   in   early   1969.   Again  mistakenly,   he   has   Michael   Hamel-­‐Green   going  underground  in  1968.  

The   author’s  treatment  of   the  Bakery  in  Greville  Street  Prahran,  and  the  Worker-­‐Student  Alliance  organisation,  is  also  a-­‐historical.  He  describes  spending  his  vacation  at  Camp   Eureka,  at  a   ‘radical   conference   of   University  Labor  clubs  and  other  like  minds’.  He  does  not  indicate  which   vacation,   but   the   context   defines   this   as   the  Christmas-­‐New   Year   period   of   1968-­‐69.   This  conference,   he   says,   set   up   a   new   organisation,   the  Worker-­‐Student   Alliance   (WSA).   In   fact   the   Worker-­‐Student   Alliance   was   not   formed   until   twelve   months  later,  at  Camp  Eureka  in  the  new  year  of  1970.  Nor  were  University  Labor  clubs  represented  at  Camp  Eureka.  

Hyde  says  he  was  assigned   to  search  for  a   building   to  rent  for  WSA,  and   found  an  old   two-­‐storey  building   in  Greville   Street  Prahran,   formerly  a   bakery.  He  was  no  doubt  assigned  to  `ind  a  building,  but  not  for  WSA.  The  Bakery  was  established  in  early  1969  as  an  off-­‐campus  headquarters  for  the  Monash  Labor  Club  and  for  non-­‐student  revolutionaries.  The  organisation  which,  along  with   the   Labor   Club,   found   the   Bakery   in   Greville  Street,   and  which  paid   the   rent   throughout  that  `irst  year,   was   not   WSA   but   the   Revolutionary   Socialist  Alliance  (RSA  or  ‘Rev  Socs’).  This  organisation  was  set  up   to   accommodate   workers   and   other  non-­‐Monash  radicals.   Having   made   such   a   fundamental   historical  error  about  WSA  and  RSA,   almost  everything  written  about  the  Bakery  needs  correction  or  quali`ication.  

Hyde  writes  that  the  WSA  was  set  up  in  early  1969  to  be   a  point  of  contact  for  Peoples  Theatre,   Students   in  Dissent  and  the  Socialist  Teachers  Association.  He  has  WSA   ‘taking   off’   (‘with   branches   from   Carlton   to  Boronia’)   in  1969.  This  of  course  all  happened  at  least  twelve  months  later.   The   aforementioned  groups   (PT,  SID  and  STA)  did  not  exist  in  early  1969.  He  describes  the   1969   Bakery   meetings   and   1969   Bakery   Friday  night  parties  as  WSA   events.   Actually,   they  were   run  by  the  RSA  (which  Hyde   completely  writes  out  of   the  picture)   and   the   Monash   Labor   Club.   He   writes   the  Worker-­‐Student   Alliance   branches   were   everywhere  in  mid-­‐1970.  Actually,  this  burgeoning  did  not  happen  until   1971.   He   claims  a   number   of   secondary-­‐school  student   ‘undergrounds’   emerged   with   the   advent   of  the   Bakery.   This   is   misleading.   Many   had   in   fact  emerged   before   the   Bakery.   He   credits  the  WSA  with  moving  beyond  lip  service  to  workers,  and  ramping  up  student-­‐worker  solidarity,  at  the   time  of   the  attack  on  Clarrie   O’Shea   in   May  1969.   In   fact   it   was   the   Labor  Club  and  RSA  who  did   this.  WSA  did  not  exist  in  May  1969.

[1968   membership   card   of   the   Monash   Anti-­‐conscription   Society.   -­‐   [Ken  Mansell].   Source:  Reason   in  Revolt.  http://www.reasoninrevolt.net.au/bib/PR0001649.htm]  

By  the  end  of   1969,  most  of   those  still   involved  at  the  Bakery   had   decided   a   more   effectual,   activist   and  militant  organisation  was  needed.  WSA  was  set  up   in  early  1970  in  explicit   rejection   of   RSA.   This  does   not  justify  wiping   RSA  off   the   historical   map.   Unless  one  believes   that   the   author   remains   hostile   to   the  memory   of   RSA,   which  would   be   unlikely,   or  he   has  con`lated   RSA   and   WSA   for   literary   convenience,   it  

RECORDER

4  Recorder  no.  272

seems  strange  that  he  has  ignored  it.  He  himself  stood  for  Prahran  Council  in  August  1969  as  a  RSA  (‘Prahran  Peoples   Campaign’)   candidate   (polling   a   total   of   82  votes).  With   the   single   exception  of   ‘Joe’,   the   ex-­‐IWW  boot-­‐maker   (the   historical   Bill   Genery),   none   of   the  local   Prahran   left-­‐wing   political   identities   (Fred  Farrall   for  example)   are   mentioned.   Could   it   be   that  this   is   because   most   of   them   were   political  ‘revisionists’?  

[Half   Baked,   Revolutionary   Socialists,   Melbourne,   February   1969.   Source:  Reason  in  Revolt  http://www.reasoninrevolt.net.au/bib/PR0001654.htm]

Hyde   is   cavalier   in   his   treatment   of   the   on-­‐campus  struggle   at  Monash,   and   the   anti-­‐war  movement.  The  Monash   Association   of   Students   (MAS),   the   famous  Mock   Cruci`ixion,   and   the   `irst   Monash   sit-­‐ins  (provoked   by   the   University’s   co-­‐operation   with  police),   all   of   which   were   1968   events,   have   been  transported   in   time   to   around   September  1967.   The  Saturday   morning   anti-­‐war   jaunts   of   Labor   Club  members  to  the   City  Square,   which  occurred   in   early  1968 ,   a re   pos i t ioned   somet ime   a f ter   the  demonstration   outside   Dow   Chemicals   in   October  1968.   Hyde   recalls   speaking   at   the   County   Court   in  support   of   those   charged   with   a   raid   on   Honeywell.  The  Court  appearance  was  October  1970  (and  the  raid  July   1970).   Hyde   places   it  before   the  Moratorium,   in  May  1970.  It  is  hardly  surprising,  after  all  this,  that  the  author   has   skewed   the   origins   of   the   women’s  

movement   as   well.   He   describes   ‘Judy’   attending   a  meeting   of   the   ‘women’s  movement’   around   October  1968   when   both   the   movement   and   the   term   itself  could  hardly  have  existed.

Given   that   the   author  has  falsi`ied   history,  how  much  of  what  he  writes  can  be  taken   seriously  as  historical  truth,   as   an   accurate   or   authentic   rendering   of  historical  events?  How  much  is  memory?  How  much  is  invented?   How  much   is   real?   How   many   characters  described   in   the   book   are   cardboard   cut   outs   that  never   really   existed?   The   question   arises   time   and  again  –  is  the  book  a  memoir,  as  it  claims,  or  a  work  of  `iction?  Is  it  really  an  historical  novel?

Memoir  or  Novel?Given  how  common  the  merging  of  history  and  `iction  has   become,   it   is   hardly   surprising   that  Hyde’s   book  should  be  accepted  and  read  by  many  as  a  novel.  Since  reading   the   book   last   November   I   have   spoken   to   a  number  of   former  ‘sixties’   activists  who  believe  that  it  is  actually  a   novel.   One   such  person  –  a   central  `igure  in  the  Monash  events  and  at  the  Bakery  –  said  he  could  not   remember   most   of   the   incidents   and   did   not  expect   that   Hyde   would   either:   ‘How   could   anyone  remember  what  happened  then?  He  must  have  made  it  up’.  This  same  person  suggested  that  Hyde’s  Jasmine  Street  characters  were   ‘made   up’:   ‘He  wanted   to  have  fewer   characters   so   he   uses   composites,   and   he  con`lates  WSA  and  ‘Rev  Socs’  for  convenience’.

Certainly   Hyde’s   book   does   have   some   of   the  characteristics   and   conventions   of   a   novel.   As   in   a  novel,   the   author  has   written   a   narrative,   albeit   one  that   is   chronologically   disordered   and   based   on  vignettes   and   sketches   strung   loosely   together.   The  false   (or   `ictionalised)   names   and   the   cardboard   cut  out   (composite)   characters   are   also   novelistic.   In  addition,   there   can   be   no   doubt   some   of   it  has  been  made  up.  (The  author  did  not  live  at  the  Bakery.  One  of  his   best   friends   at   the   time   cannot   remember   him  talking   about   having   had   a   gun  pointed  at  him.  Peter  Price   cannot  clearly   remember   a   spy   tailing   them   in  Phnom  Penh).   Some  elements  of   the  love   scenes  must  have   been   imagined,   and   some   of   the   detailed  conversations   obviously   must   have   been   made   up.  There   are   also   examples   of   super-­‐memory.   On   page  67,   he   remembers,   and   casually   comments   on,   some  passing   women   and   their   ‘beautiful   bums’,   as   if   one  would  actually  remember  these  forty  years  on.

For   all   that,   I  accept   that   the   book   is  a  memoir.   In   a  novel,   history   (that   is,   past   historical   events)   is  employed  as  background,  but   the   basic  narrative,   and  the  main  point  of  the  work,   is  the   imagined   storyline.  In  Hyde’s  book  the   historical  events  are   the   storyline:  the  invented  or  imagined  bits  are  incidental.  

Only  people  who  were   not  there,   or  people  who  have  forgotten,  could  believe  the  book  is  made  up  mainly  of  imagined   or   invented   (`ictionalised)   events.   Though  disguised   by   invented   names,   most   of   the   key  characters   in   the  book  are  recognisable,   to  those  who  

RECORDER

5  Recorder  no.  272

have   remembered   or   researched   the   times,   as   real  historical   `igures.   (One   of   them   is  myself   –   ‘Ken   the  folksinger’).   Though  he   has  altered   or   invented   facts,  he  has  not  made  most  of  it  up.  He  has  not  imagined   it.  He  has  called  on  his  memory,  and  his  descriptions  are,  for  the  most  part,  acutely  observant.   These  are   things  he   can  remember  happening   historically.  This  is  what  one   is  entitled   to   expect   from   a  memoir.   If   the   book  were  a  novel,  Hyde  would  have   invented  a   false  name  and   identity   for   himself   as   well.   Instead,   the  recognisable   and   historical   Mike   Hyde   is   the   central  and   pivotal   character,   the   `irst-­‐person   narrator  throughout.   He   is   not   omniscient   –  he   does   not   and  cannot  peer  into  the  minds  of  other  characters  -­‐  but  he  is   able   to   expose   his   own   thoughts  and   feelings.   His  memories  are  not  imagined;  they  are  real.

In   Part   One   of   the   book,   Hyde   does   what   no   novel  narrator  is  allowed  to  do.  He  muses  on  what  historically  lays  in  store  for  him  –  ‘a  beating,   interrogation,  guns  at  your  head,   phone   taps,   Special   Branch’.   A   first-­‐person  narrator  knowing   in  advance  what  the   future   holds  is  hardly  what  one  expects  in  a  novel.

The  front  cover  title,   the  back  cover  publisher’s  blurb,  and   the   back   cover   recommendation   of   Humphrey  McQueen,   all   claim   the   book   as   a   memoir.   In   his  ‘Acknowledgements’   at   the   front   of   the   book,   Hyde  mentions   his   novel   Hey   Joe   –   ‘the   precursor   to   the  memoir’.   There   is  nothing   in   the   ‘Acknowledgements’  to  suggest  he   has  written  a   novel   –   in   fact  he   thanks  people   for   the   factual  material   on   which   the   book   is  based.  Clearly,  he  planned  to  write  something   that  had  claims  to  historical  accuracy.  

[Serve   the   People  Not   the  Dollar:  How  to  Vote   Card,   H.  Barnes,  Melbourne,  August   1969.  Source:  Reason  in  Revolt   http://www.reasoninrevolt.net.au/bib/PR0001665.htm]

ConclusionSo,   how   do   we   judge   this   memoir?   Given   the   book  announces   itself   as  memoir,   and   Hyde   is   both   author  and  first-­‐person  narrator,  many  ordinary  readers  would  almost   certainly   assume   they   are   reading   something  resembling   historical   ‘truth’   (give   or   take   a   few  pseudonyms,   and   a   little   bit   of   unreliable   memory).  This  is  why  the   book  is  not  fair  to  the  ordinary  reader.  

He   or   she   is   given   no   clue   when   the   narrative   shifts  from  historical  ‘truth’  to  fiction  and  back  again.

The  work  has  so  many   structural   errors  of   historical  sequence   that   this  must  be   deliberate.   These   are   not  simple  errors  of   fact.  The  author  knowingly  alters  the  sequence   of   events.   Whatever   literary   arguments  could  be  raised  to  justify  this  kind  of  writing,  it  is  not  a  legitimate  practice  for  a  memoir.  Nor  is  it  legitimate  to  cite   real   historical   events   and   knowingly   make   up  things   that   did   not   actually   happen   at   those   events,  suggesting  to  readers  that  they  did.  

McCalman’s   injunction   against   what   he   calls   ‘plot  enhancements  without  any  historical  warrant’   applies  to   memoirists   as   well   as   historians:   ‘When   in   the  future  we  historians  `lirt  with  the  models  and  styles  of  `iction,   we  need   at   the   same   time   to  make   clear   that  our   two   enterprises   remain   separated   by   the   one  simple   and   unbridgeable   distinction   that   historians  cannot  make  up  their  facts  (however  elusive  the  status  of  a   fact  might  be)’.  He  continued:  ‘…if   I  have  connived  in  allowing  the  book  to  seem  like  a  `iction  to  the  extent  that   readers   and   reviewers   become   confused,   then   I  must  stand  condemned’.  [Iain  McCalman,  ‘Flirting  with  Fiction’,   in   S.Macintyre   (ed.),   The   Historian’s  Conscience,  Melbourne  University  Press,  2004.]  The   liberal  use   of   pseudonyms  means  the   author  can  slip  from  fact  to  `iction  and  back  again  throughout  the  book   without   indicating   when   this   is   happening.  Calling   Karl   ‘Kurt’   means   Hyde   can   put   him   in  whatever  year  he   likes.  Calling  Peter  Price   ‘Bill’  means  he  can  write  what  he  likes  about  the  trip  to  Cambodia.  Someone  who  has  researched   the  period,  or  who  can  identify   the   historical   identities   hidden   behind   the  false  names,  may  be   able   to  discern  the  shift  from  fact  to  `iction   (and   vice  versa),   but   the   ordinary  reader  is  at  the  author’s  mercy.  This  method  invites  complaints  from   those   written   out   of   the   story   or   those  historically  misrepresented.

In  her  autobiographical  work,  My  Father’s  Daughter   –  Memories   of   an   Australian   Childhood ,   Sheila  Fitzpatrick   obliges   her   readers   with   an   opening  prologue,   spelling   out   the   method   she   used   in  grappling  with  the  tension  between  memory  and  ‘fact’.  An   introductory   chapter   or   preface   explaining   the  author’s   method   and   coming   clean   on   his   literary  purposes  might  have  gone  some  way  to  alleviating  the  credibility  problems  referred  to.  Why  the  false  names?  Why   not   false   names   for   everyone?   Why   the  chronological  confusion?  

In  my  Masters  thesis  on  the  Bakery  (The  Yeast  is  Red),  written  in  1994,  I  included  an  introduction  explaining  to  the  reader  that  the   diary  entries  sprinkled  through  the   text  were   invented  (`ictional)  and  not  to  be  taken  as  real  historical  documents.  This  was  done  in  order  to  keep   faith  with   the   reader.   Unfortunately,  because   he  has   not   respected   his   readers   by   including   an  introduction  and  de`ining  what  it  is,  Michael  Hyde  has  diminished  his  book.  

RECORDER

6  Recorder  no.  272

Those   who   interpret  the   book   as   a   novel  will  not  be  bothered  by  the   historical  mistakes.  More   than   likely  they   will   not   be   aware   of   them.   If   there   is   poor  research,   poor   memory,   or   even   deliberate  falsi`ication,  who   cares  as  long   as  the   book   is  a   good  read?  At  the  same  time,  the  book  announces  itself  as  a  serious  memoir  of   the   times.   I  have   said  at  the  outset  [see   Recorder,   No.   271,   pp.   5-­‐6]   that   Michael   Hyde  deserves   enormous   credit   for   attempting   and  publishing  his  memoir  of  the  sixties,  for  it  successfully  communicates   those   times  and   the  way  young  people  like  Mike  Hyde  were  swept  into  revolutionary  politics.  But  this  is  a  memoir  that  is  historically  problematic.

[Note:   this   review   is   abridged.   The   full   review   is   posted   on   the  Melbourne  Branch  website]

ROBESON  REMEMBERED

In  issue  no.  270,  Brian  Smiddy  wrote  of  ASIO’s  treatment  of  Paul  Robeson  during  his  1960  visit  to  Australia.  This  piece  and  a  subsequent  re-­airing  of  the  BBC’s  1985  radio  documentary  

Black  Rights  Rebel,  prompted  John  Ellis  to  write.

By  John  Ellis

My  first  connection  with  the  voice  of  Paul  Robeson  was  during   the  1930s  when  my  father  would  sing  Old  Man  River.  In  1956  a  peace  conference  was  held  in  the  South  Melbourne   Town   Hall   and  Robeson  was  one   of  many  notable   overseas   artists,   writers   and   peace   activists  who   were   invited   to   the   conference.   McCarthyism  prevented  Robeson  from  leaving  the  United  States  so  he  sent   a   recording  which   was  played   to   the   audience.   I  remember  it  as  similar  to  the  one  he  sent  to  his  friends  in  Manchester.

I   have   a   recording   of   the   events   held   at   the   two  Peekskill  concerts  made  by  Pete  Seeger  who  was  there  as  a   performer.  My  next  connection  with  Robeson  was  when   I   was   a   member   of   the   Victorian   Trade   Union  Choir.  Whenever  we  sang  'Joe  Hill'  I  had  great  difficulty  in  keeping  my  voice   from  gagging.   I  missed  Robeson  in  1960  when  he  was   in   Australia   as   I  was   in  the  United  States.  My  memory  of  him  as  an  anti-­‐fascist  and  fighter  for  his  people  will  never  leave  me.  

[Paul  Robeson  singing  to  workers  at  the  Opera  House  in  Sydney,  1960.  The  radio  documentary  is  currently  available   via   the  ABC’s  website:  http://www.abc.net.au/rn/replay/stories/2011/3284656.htm]

RETIRED  TRADE  UNIONISTS  LIVE  ON

By  Brian  Smiddy

With  the  recent  completion  of  the  incorporation  of  the  Australian   Manufacturing   Workers   Union   Retired  Members   Division   into   the   National   Organisation   of  the   AMWU,   a   pathway   has   been   established   for   the  continuation  of  activity  for  retired  union  members.

For   a   number   of   years   on   a   regular   basis,   retired  members  of   the   AMWU  have   been  meeting   regularly  to  discuss  and  act  upon  matters  of   interest  to  retirees.  Such   discussions   are   not   just   limited   to   pensions,  health  and  public  transport  but  includes  among  other  subjects,  the  environment,  peace  and  justice.

The  Retired  Members  Division   is  part  of   the  National  Organisation   of   the  AMWU  with  elected  National   and  State  of`icials  

The   recent   substantial   increase   in   the   single   age  pension   came   about   as   a   result   of   action   by   the  Division   and   other   retired   union   bodies   joining   the  Council  of  the  Ageing  (COTA).  This  joint  action  set  up  a  body   called   ‘Fair   Go   for   Pensioners’,   discussion   and  action  ensued  and  much  lobbying  of  Parliamentarians  took  place.

Retired   trade   unionists,   both   men   and  women,   have  many  skills  which  they  are  prepared  to  use  to  help  the  needy,  both  young  and  old.

In  conclusion,  trade  union  activity  does  not  stop  when  a   person   retires   from   work   but   continues   until   we  enter  death’s  door.  

What  is  Labour  History  for?

As   Frank   Bongiorno   noted   in   the   May   edition   of  Labour   History,   ‘Labour   historians   have   been   among  the  most  re`lective  history  practitioners  in  Australia’.  It  is   therefore   not   surprising   that   in   2011,   the   50th  anniversary  of  the   formation  of   the  Australian  Society  for   the   Study  of   Labour  History,   that   the   question   of  labour   history’s  purpose   is  centre-­‐stage.   Is   it   history  for   history’s   sake,   or   does   it   (or   should   it)   serve   a  larger  purpose?

In  September  this  year  Humphrey  McQueen  circulated  an   essay  called  Whose  side  are  you   on?   The  mundane  decline   of   labour   history.   McQueen   pointedly   asked  whether   many   labour   historians   ‘understand   why  being   on   a   picket   line   is   as   much   a   prerequisite   for  writing  labour  history  as  is  securing  a  research  grant?’  McQueen  noted  that  at   its  inception,   ‘the   Society  and  its  publications  were  part  of  a   struggle  for  position  on  the  ideological  front,  an  early  campaign  in  the  History  Wars.’  In  the  past  `ifty  years,  however,  he  argues,  most  labour   historians,   cocooned   in   academia,   have   lost  their   way.   McQueen   urges   us   ‘to   revive   the   class  

RECORDER

7  Recorder  no.  272

commitment  of  the  founders’  of  the  society,   ‘to  see   the  present   as   history   and   to   take   to   heart   Brian  Fitzpatrick’s   1955   Meanjin   essay   ‘The   Origins   of   the  People  are  not  in  the  Library’.’  

Likewise,   in   another   thought   provoking   essay,  Rediscovering   Radical   History,   Terry   Irving   has   also  suggested  that  ‘the  importance  of  politics  to  how  labour  history   is   practiced,   if   it   has   not   disappeared,   has  certainly  declined.’  The  essay  is  housed  at  a  website  set  up   by   Terry   Irving   and   Rowan   Cahill   following   the  publication  of  their  book  Radical  Sydney  and  which  has  subsequently   expanded   as   a   platform   for   radical  writing.  The  political  project  at  the  heart  of  early  labour  histories,   it   is   argued,   has   been   subsumed.   As   Irving  suggests,   the   founders   of   the   Society,   ‘were   part   of   a  movement   tradition   of   history  work  that  was  political  by  definition.  There  is  an  intellectual  dimension  to  what  we  have  largely  lost:  they  wrote  radical  history,  not  just  labour   history.’   Also   on   the   site   is   a   copy   of   Rowan  Cahill’s  2004  essay  “Never  Neutral”:  On  Labour  History/Radical  History.   In   this  he   discusses  the   ‘emancipatory  dimension’  of  radical  history  and  he  too  suggests  that  in  the   past   few   decades,   with   ‘notable’   exceptions,   ‘the  original   counter   hegemonic   intent   and   impetus   of  labour   history   was   either   lost   or   forgotten.   Instead  there   emerged   a   genre   of   historical   research   and  writing   more   concerned   with   academic   credentialing  and  advancement  than  having  a  political  purpose’.  It’s  a  discussion  worth  having.  [JK]

Readers  interested  can  `ind  Humphrey  McQueen’s  essay  at  http://workersbushtelegraph.com.au/2011/09/13/whose-­‐side-­‐are-­‐you-­‐on/Terry  Irving’s  at  http://radicalsydney.blogspot.com/p/rediscovering-­‐radical-­‐history-­‐essay-­‐by.html  and  Rowan  Cahill’s  piece  ‘Never  Neutral’  at  http://radicalsydney.blogspot.com/p/radical-­‐history.html

PARLINFO:  HANSARD  (&  MORE)  ONLINE

Hansard   and   other   historical   records   of   the  Commonwealth   government   are   available   online.   Go   to  http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/search.w3p  It’s  not   the  most   forgiving   of   search   engines   but  it   is  a  fantastic  resource  once  you  get  the  hang  of  it.  Searches  can  be  done  on  a  particular  year,  topic,  speaker,  debate,  piece  of  legislation  and  more.  Be  warned:  it  is  addictive.  A  search  on  Anstey  –  for  the  amusement  of  Peter  Love  –  brought  up  a   1995   debate   between   Latham   and   Cleary   on   Anstey,  anti-­‐semitism  and  the  Money  Power  during  which  Cleary  urges  Latham  to  ‘Go  and  have   a   look  at  the   speech,   you  moron,  because  you  would  not  have  a  clue.’  [JK]

NOTICES

Wednesday  7  DecemberLOOKING  FOR  THE  LIGHT  ON  THE  HILL  -­  MODERN  

LABOR’S  CHALLENGES

From  the  Fabian  Society:  ‘With  an  introduction  from  Cath  Bowtell,  Troy  Bramston  will  speak  about  his  new  book  and  views  on  what  Labor  needs  to  do  to  recover  its  electorate  strength  before  the  next  election.  Looking  for  the  Light  on  the  Hill  argues  that  Labor  is  bedevilled  by  twin  problems:  the  loss  of  its  intrinsic  culture  of  strong,  bold,  and  innovative  leadership;  and  an  identity  crisis  that  has  emerged  because  Labor  has  failed  to  refresh  its  values,  philosophy,  and  purpose  for  the  modern  era.  Written  by  a  party  insider  and  former  Rudd  government  adviser,  the  book  draws  on  Labor’s  history  with  fresh  perspectives,  and  includes  the  secret  components  of  the  party’s  recent  internal  review.  6:00  -­‐  7.30pm,  Melbourne  Conference  Centre,  Corner  Swanston  and  Lt  Lonsdale  Streets.  Cost:  Members,  Students,  Concession:  $5,  Non-­‐members:  $10.  RSVP:  vicevents@fabian.org.au  (particularly  if  interested  in  a  copy  of  the  book  so  we  can  cater  for  the  numbers).’  FABIAN  SOCIETY.

****On  25  November  2011,  The  Age  published  an  excellent  opinion  piece  by  David  Whyte  on  the  ‘degradation  of  [workers’]  humanity’  at  the  Baiada  chicken  factory  in  Laverton  North.  If  you  missed  it  it  is  well  worth  the  read:  Rare  victory  for  workers  whose  dignity  was  cut  to  the  bone  http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/rare-­‐victory-­‐for-­‐workers-­‐whose-­‐dignity-­‐was-­‐cut-­‐to-­‐the-­‐bone-­‐20111124-­‐1nwwj.html#ixzz1etpUVlPa

****APOLOGY:  In  the  last  edition  of  Recorder  we  promised  book  reviews  on  Humphrey  McQueen’s  new  book  We  Built  this  Country:  Builders’  Labourers  and  Their  Unions  and  Andrew  Moore’s  Mr  Big  of  Bankstown:  The  Scandalous  Fitzpatrick  and  Browne  Affair.  Due  to  the  short  time  between  editions,  this  has  not  been  possible.  The  reviews  will  appear  in  issue  no.  273.  Sorry!  [JK]

Melbourne  Branch  ASSLH  Contacts

PresidentPeter  Love,  51  Blanche  Street,  St  Kilda  3182.  

Tel:  9534  2445    Secretary  

Brian  Smiddy,  7  The  Crest,  Watsonia  3087.  Tel:  9435  5145  Treasurer  

Phillip  Deery,  85  Little  Page  Street,  Albert  Park  3206.  Tel:  9690  2184

Website:  http://www.asslh.org.au/melbourneFind  us  on  Facebook:  type  in  ‘Labour  History  Melbourne’

Recorder  is  published  four  times  a  year.    The  opinions  of  the  contributors  are  their  own  and  not  necessarily  those  of  the  Editor  

or  Executive  of  the  ASSLH,  Melbourne  Branch.  Send  all  contributions  and  queries  to  the  editor,  Julie  Kimber  

(jkimber@swin.edu.au).  Recorder  is  published  with  the  generous  help  of  Ellen  Smiddy  and  Kevin  Davis.

RECORDER

8  Recorder  no.  272